Independents will vote for an array of candidates as long as they understand that the average voter is hurting economically. To them, everything else is a distraction and a reason to punish representatives of the classic parties who don't get it.

That's my view on things anyhow. Time will tell.

I think you are spot on. A growing number of Americans are frustrated with both main parties, and frankly I think the loudest voice in this election was made by the majority who did not vote (record lows in quite a few areas, including here in Nebraska). People are so frustrated with the parties and inter-party fighting that there seemed to be no point in voting because it would not matter. Each party has become entrenched in only representing itself, evidenced by the focus of each in the election being on gaining/maintaining majority power at the expense of the other party.

Now the election is over and you would think they would get down to solving the country's problems, but instead we are seeing only a continuation of the inter-party fighting with all the talk of wasting time/money on investigations and impeachment attempts that will go nowhere and solve nothing. Then we have McConnell saying, when talking about Republican goals in the next Congress, that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president". Seriously? Screw the country and its problems, it's all about the party.

Neither party wants to tackle the country's problems, they only want to tackle their party's problems. There is no governmental leadership or public concern in any of this, from either party. So the pressing needs of the country continue to be pushed further back in the line.

Interestingly this type of scenario is what led to the rise of the Republican Party in the first place (and the demise of the Whig Party) as well as the election of Lincoln, the last 3rd-party candidate to become president. Could we be ripe for a repeat of history?

Much of the framing of representation in the Constitution was done to try to prevent political parties from forming and having greater influence than the public, and as a result there were no recognized political parties in the first presidential election. It did not last however, and unfortunately what we have today is what the founding fathers feared and sought to prevent.

Not an attempt at thread ressurection, just want to point out hypocritics all around.

In a recent WaPo article, there was mention of an even in which a group of Taliban thugs apparently blatantly burned hundreds of copies of the Koran while happily burning down yet another school. Clearly, the hypocrisy of the Taliban is apparent, using Islam as their banner while showing little regard for it.

"Bill, I'd just like to say how amusing it is to me that the loudest of those who are currently looking for personal and group security/safety from expression or action that one considers improper, are so heavily found on the Left (NAACP/Race groups, GLBT groups, anyone who screams racist/homophobic/teabagger at the slightest challenge to their social agenda)."

Depends on what you hear, right? The rest of us hear a really loud din from the right about how they aren't permitted to be christian anymore, whether in school or court or even in their homes, so persecuted are they. Or how there is an onslaught of evil rap music and bad television. An invasion of foreign culture and religion, so threatening we must oppose mosques moving from building A to building B, and pass laws noting that sharia law must not stand in our heartland. That we must control education, writing creation into textbooks, writing reality out of sex ed and substituting abstinence only laws. And so on. We are a substantially more conservative and evangelical nation than much of our Western family.

The left is nuts, the right is nuts. But nobody thinks their own sheet stinks right?

An invasion of foreign culture and religion, so threatening we must oppose mosques moving from building A to building B...

I see, it's perfectly fine to marginalize the other point of view.

Quote:

and pass laws noting that sharia law must not stand in our heartland.

I just read an article detailing how a girl who burned a koran in England got arrested for it.

Quote:

That we must control education

Who taught the Right that maxim, Ian? After years of indoctrination in homosexuality, sex ed, and various other liberal pet topics? My sister, six years my junior, is convinced there's a right to marriage locked in the Constitution; that wind power is a suitable replacement for nuclear power; and that Obama will fix everything if we just give him more time. She didn't learn that silly crap at home.

Quote:

writing creation into textbooks

This is what happens when the Left adopts an all-or-nothing attitude for decades, that science is hostile towards religion. Religion strikes back. I'm not saying I agree with it, but for every action there is a reaction.

Quote:

writing reality out of sex ed and substituting abstinence only laws.

Big deal.

Quote:

We are a substantially more conservative and evangelical nation than much of our Western family.

I'm rather enamored of my nation, and if I wanted to live in an environment like that of the rest of the Western family, I'd go live there.

Quote:

The left is nuts, the right is nuts. But nobody thinks their own sheet stinks right?

See Jason, you're startign to get it. YOU are on one side of that issue so when people raise them, you just say, oh, totally agree, that's just common sense. When you hear the other side, you think, oh, total wacko. THAT group is always raising their issues, how annoying. It's like only noticing red lights and thinking the traffic system is against you.

Then you go and tell me that I missed the polint because I didn't mention liberal buffonery, even though I pointed out on several occasions recently and RIGHT THEN that both sides were nuts. Um, dur, you just made that case, it's hardly necessary for me to introduce you to it. But since it pains you if I don't point out my ability to think on my own, let me point out, for example, that leftish groups who seek to deny any humanity of a fetus and claim that an abortion is just the removal of tissue are completely nuts. If they're not doing everything they can to reduce abortion rates, regardless of how legal they think they should remain, they're completely nuts. Abortions, even if medically necessary and early, are always an occasion for grief and reflection and I oppose the use of abortion just to get rid of an unwanted fetus, given the number of people willing to adopt these unwanted fetuses.

I feel similarly strongly about any rhetoric that implies we should throw a ton of money at HIV infections that perfectly knowlegeable adults are getting in the name of being nonjudgmental. Crazy! The irresponsibility and lack of concern for others expressed in this culture of easy sex is totally wacko.

How about union pensioners and the elderly who want their excessive benefits and their earlier retirement regardless of the fact that, say, CA and the USA are sinking under entitlement debt? Calpers waaaay over promised retirement and they need to scale back; those pensioners need to be vulnerable to market swings just like the rest of us so the system doesn't have to sell everything to meet short term obligations. Remember how I recently said I supported Whitman's policies on this and was scared of Jerry Brown's?

What's one difference between you and me? Well, I'm not going to make excuses for these liberal nuts by saying it's a response to attempts to restrict abortion rights or conservative attacks on sexuality or benefits. I will now return you to your selective hearing experience.

http://www.freedompolitics.com/news/isl ... e-new.htmlI'm referring to this mess in TN, which literally is about a mosque moving from building A to B. It is unnecessary fuss, and it's completely contrary to our Constitution's guarantees. So if you think it is "marginalizing" for me to worry about these overreactionary feelings, bummer. Regardless, this is noise raised by the right, which was my point. The whole mosque thing in NYC is another example. NYC decided things were cool; there's already a mosque nearby that was older than the twin towers. The spot wasn't hallowed ground, it was a Burlington Coat Factory outlet or something. Things were ok until the right blew it up for political hay. Not as bad as with a cartoon of Muhammed, at least.

"I just read an article detailing how a girl who burned a koran in England got arrested for it."

She got arrested to fomenting religious hatred, which was the part where she posted it online. First, I totally agree with you this is unacceptable and she should be able to speak freely on this and any other issue. Luckily, this is not in TN or OK and we have a Constitution granting freedom of speech. So maybe the English should pass anti-Sharia, and pro-free speach laws, but where again is our need?

I'm sorry you lost your sister to the left. My little brother was raised an NPR nerd by a gun fearing soccer mom and turned into an Army captain who drives a pickup and listens to country music. Was it school? In any case, whether we want to be Constitutional literalists or not, stranger rights have been found in the document by the SCOTUS members themselves.

"This is what happens when the Left adopts an all-or-nothing attitude for decades, that science is hostile towards religion. Religion strikes back. I'm not saying I agree with it, but for every action there is a reaction."

Um, not really a fair comparison. Science class didn't come into church, but church is coming into science class. You want your kids fed religion? Take em to church. The "left" didn't write books saying science was hostile to religion (quote one!) but rather factualists noted there was no scientific reason to include creation in science books.

"Big deal."

Well, seems you admit they wrote reality out of sex ed. I propose it IS a big deal if someone gets pregnant as a result. Results in those abortions they, and I, despise. NB: I don't advocate we tell our kids it's wise to have casual sex; I tell ADULTS not to do it but fill them in on safety information for if they do. I would tell them it's better to wait, give them facts, and arm them for harm reduction if they choose sooner over later. I have mixed feelings over parental issues here. I don't want to usurp their teachings, on the other hand, I doubt kids raised in strict Christian environments are in Girls Gone Wild because of a well-done health class that covers perhaps the most relevant health issue for adolescents with the same gravity it gives to the rest of health. I'm opposed to ostrich mode here. Can me a marxist if you like.

Point is, there's a debate on, Jason. It's not just you and your correct friends having to put up with phoney Americans who don't get it. Others who disagree have just as much sense, right, and patriotism as you.

Point is, there's a debate on, Jason. It's not just you and your correct friends having to put up with phoney Americans who don't get it. Others who disagree have just as much sense, right, and patriotism as you.

No, I was being flippant, because I didn't get the initial reference in the previous post. Again, with the sex ed, it's reactionary. There's no need to have the kama sutra involved in a sex ed class, and no need to have students putting condoms on bananas; none whatsoever to include gay sex methods. Planned Parenthood and others have done some pretty obtuse things with 'sex ed' over the years. So one side digs in and says it's 'all or nothing,' and the other side digs in and says, 'fine, it's nothing.'

Personally, I really don't care what they teach in school. I'm perfectly capable of teaching that subject matter to my own children.

Quote:

She got arrested to fomenting religious hatred, which was the part where she posted it online. First, I totally agree with you this is unacceptable and she should be able to speak freely on this and any other issue. Luckily, this is not in TN or OK and we have a Constitution granting freedom of speech. So maybe the English should pass anti-Sharia, and pro-free speach laws, but where again is our need?

Ian, we've been subjected to the Left's 'the sky is falling' campaign regarding global warming for decades now. It's been used to justify all sorts of anti-business nonsense, always with the most urgent of hooplah. The Left always believes that if we don't act NOW, we're all doomed. So is it really a surprise when people on the Right see Sharia law being applied in a close ally, they act? It's a consequence of the daily 24-hour television/radio grind of holocaust-proportion impending doom.

I didn't say you specifically questioned mine. But you have the general attitude that people on the left of you are laughable morons. So I was building them up as solid, real Americans so you can perhaps see that it's not sane vs left, but left vs right, with real wackos on both sides.

"There's no need to have the kama sutra involved in a sex ed class."

Agreed; obvious.

"... and no need to have students putting condoms on bananas; none whatsoever to include gay sex methods."

Well this is actually vague. If you mean "methods" like people are giving technique tips, than yes, of course, and I'm unaware that's ever happened for any kind of sex, but it would be interesting to hear where that's happened. If you mean that gay sex wouldn't need to be mentioned at all, well, that's where you're wrong. Gay kids (as you like to point out) are at high risk of dangerous STDs. If they make one immature decision or do one clueless act, they can get HIV forever, a lot more often than a straight kid. And their parents are very unlikely to tell them anything of value, not knowing or hoping they're not really gay in most cases. So if you're hoping they're not mentioned at all, you may be putting these kids at risk of a deadly incurable illness, and I'm really not sure for what reason. Because it would take ten minutes to disclose some risks of certain sex acts (which would have to come up anyway in a complete class since straight kids are having plenty of anything gay kids could do anyway)? Their health isn't worth the time? I can also tell you I've met many people who recall not hearing one positive or neutral word from anyone in high school about their community, and not being mentioned in health made them convinced their school didn't care if they lived or died. It made an impression on them, and it matters. Presumably you know this, citing the suicide stats yourself.

"It's been used to justify all sorts of anti-business nonsense, always with the most urgent of hooplah. The Left always believes that if we don't act NOW, we're all doomed."

I think wackos of all stripes do that. But you continue to blame the left and excuse the right as only replying in these issues. It's your right to see it that way, even if it isn't so.

"So is it really a surprise when people on the Right see Sharia law being applied in a close ally, they act?"

Yes! Sharia law wasn't applied! Did she have her hand cut off? She was flogged or stoned? She was jailed under a UK law banning the spreading of religious hatred; that's the way Westerners punish people. Don't ban sharia; write a statement affirming free speech. Condemn the British. Condemn Europeans because they prevent people from holocaust denying. They're too sensitive over there, agreed! But this wasn't Sharia law. This was political correctness run amok, and limits of personal freedom by the West not the middle east. People are in a tizzy because of election cycle buzz about the nonissue of the WTC mosque and other fearmongering issues splattered about by Fox and friends. (remember when they said the IEC logo was courting ISLAM?) But wait. They were just reacting to climate change.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum